and whose sufferings are in a great measure chargeable upon his too great attachment to their interests.§

But the strongest and most unexceptionable testimony, is the act of attainder of the king's judges passed upon the restoration of King Charles II. the preamble to which sets forth, that the "execrable murder of his royal father was committed by a party of wretched men, desperately wick ́ed, and hardened in their impiety, who having first plotted and contrived the ruin of this excellent monarchy, and with it of the true protestant religion, which had long flourished under it, found it necessary, in order to carry on their pernicious and traiterous designs, to throw down all the bulwarks and fences of law, and to subvert the very being and constitution of parliament.--And for the more easy effecting their attempts on the person of the king himself, they first seduced some part of the then army into a compliance, and then kept the rest in subjection, partly for hopes of preferment, and chiefly for fear of losing their employments and arrears, till by these, and other 'more odious arts and devices, they had fully strengthen'ed themselves in power and faction; which being done, 'they declared against all manner of treaties with the per'son of the king, while a treaty with him was subsisting; 'they remonstrated against the parliament for their proceedings; they seized upon his royal person while the com'missioners were returned to London with his answers, 'which were voted, a sufficient foundation for peace; they 'then secluded and imprisoned several members of the 'house of commons, and then there being left but a smill 'number of their own creatures (not a tenth part of the 'whole) they sheltered themselves under the name and au'thority of a parliament, and in that name prepared an or'dinance for the trial of his majesty; which being r jected 'by the lords, they passed alone in the name of the com? mons of England, and pursued it with all possible force and cruelty till they murdered the king, before the gares ' of his own palace. Thus (say they) the fanatick rage of a few miscreants, who were neither true protestan s nor good subjects, stands imputed by our adversaries to the § Fox and Firebrand, part ii. p. 86. 68

VOL. III.

whole nation; we therefore renounce, abominate, and 'protest against it."*

If this be a true state of the case, it is evident, from the highest authority in this kingdom, that the king's death was not chargeable upon any religious party, or sect of christians; nor upon the people of England assembled in a free parliament, but upon the council of officers and agitators, who, having become desperate by the restless behavior of the caviliers, and ill conduct of the several parties concerned in the treaty of Newport, plotted the overthrow of the king and constitution, and accomplished it by an act of lawless violence; that it was only a small part of the army who were seduced into a compliance, and these kept the rest in subjection till the others had executed their desperate purposes; so that though the wisdom of the nation has thought fit to perpetuate the memory of this fatal day by an anniversary fast, as that which may be instructive both to princes and subjects, yet if we may believe the declaration of his majesty at his trial, or of the act of parliament which restored his family, the king's murder was not the act of the people of England, nor of their legal representatives, and therefore ought not to be lamented as a national sin.

*12 Car. ii. chap. 30

SUPPLEMENT

IT does not appear to have fallen within the design of Mr. Neal's history to enter into the detail of the different sects, which rose up during the periods of which he writes the transactions. His object was to give a view of the origin and progress of that great body of Separatists from the church of England, who first bore the name of Puritans and Nonconformists, and have been, since called Protestant Dissenters. The sufferings to which their principles exposed them, and the share they had in the political contests of the reigns of the Stuarts, furnished him with ample materials, without going into a full account of the parties into which they divided. This may be considered as excusing the cursory manner in which he has passed over the history of those parties, against the censures that have on this ground been cast on him.* If, when he hath touched upon their history, he have not preserved candor and liberality in the views he has taken of their principles and conduct, it is not so easy, here, to offer an apology for him. It is to his honor that he was the advocate for liberty and toleration. But his just sentiments concerning the rights of conscience might not, perfectly, secure his mind from prejudice. He may be supposed to have looked on some sects of christians with a less favorable eye than they deserved: he might not have given due attention to their history, or may have considered it with partiality. But much allowance must be made, in his as in other cases, for the influence of education, and of prevailing, general opinion yet after every deduction which, some may think should be made from his character for impartiality and liberality, still great praise is due to him. The baptists and the quakerst have made their complaints against our historian: and the editor has pointed out, in the course of the

Crosby's History of the English Baptists, vol. i. Preface; and Robinson's Translation of Claude on the Composition of a Sermon.

† See the former references, and Gough's History of the Quakers, vol. i. p. 83, 4, 5.

potes, some instances where, he conceives, the antitrinitarians were entitled to more candor from his pen. It will be proper, therefore, with respect to these parties to review their history, as certain periods close, and to endeavor to do that justice to them which, it may be thought, they have 'not received from his hands.

The tumultuous reign of Charles I. was not very favorable to free enquiry and theological discussions. Other matters arrested the attention, and agitated the minds of men. But yet this period was not unfruitful of sects and opinions. Edwards, in his Gangræna, gives a list of 176 propositions, which he characterises as errors, heresies, and blasphemies. They were reduced, as Mr. Neal observes, to sixteen general heads. To all these, in general, the powers who were contending for the supremacy were equally inimical: nor, which ever side gained the ascendancy, was a toleration to be expected.

The antitrinitarians, we have seen under the reign of King James, were the marked objects of persecuting indig nation. But the execution of a Legatt, and of a Wightman, was not sufficient to suppress their opinions. Others rose up, in the room of these sufferers, to embrace and propagate their sentiments, or tenets similar to theirs: and, if they were not burnt, they did not escape the animadversion of the ruling powers.

One Thomas Webb, between 20 and 21, about Sept. 27th, 1644, was complained of to the assembly, who sent up articles of accusation against him to the house of lords: on which he was imprisoned, and remained for some time confined, till he gained his liberty by signing a form of recantation. But he is represented as, after this, propagating his opinions in Sumersetshire, Suffolk, Essex and Kent; and as asserting, that "we might not use these expressions, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, for that was to make three Gods.""*

The case of Paul Best is represented by Mr. Neal: to which it may be added, that Edwards charges him with having said, in some manuscript, that the doctrine of the trinity was a mystery of iniquity, the three-headed

* Edwards's Gangræna, vol. i. part ii. p. 21.

Cerberus, a fiction, a tradition of Rome, and monstrum biforme, triforme.

Another person, who, in these times, became amenable for the sentiments and language he held concerning the doctrine of the trinity, was John Fry, who was charged before the house of commons, 3d of February 1648, with saying, that "he did not believe Jesus Christ to be God:" and adding, "he is no more God than I am; it is true, he hath more of God in him than I have, but so far as God 'giveth forth himself unto me, I am as much God as he is." To this charge he solemnly replied, as in the presence of God and to the best of his recollection, that what he said was this: "That he did not believe Jesus Christ to be God in that manner which he conceived some held; for, if he mistook not their expressions, they made Jesus Christ a distinct God from God the Father and God the Holy Ghost and that so they did of the Father and the Holy Ghost, and so held forth three Gods. This was not his opinion alone of them, but he met with others of the same judgment." As to the second charge, he denied it totally. It was never in my thoughts," said he, "to think Jesus Christ God is not God, or that I shall ever partake of the essence of God: so I do abominate the opinions charged on me."*

By these proceedings it appears, that any supposed deviations from the common doctrine of the trinity, or from the language of the established creeds concerning it, were watched with jealousy, and exposed those who were criminated, on this ground, to the resentment of the dominant powers.

Notwithstanding this, there were assemblies held in several parishes of London, where it was openly preached, that "Christ was a prophet and did miracles, but was not God." And Mr. Nye declared, that "to his knowledge the denying the divinity of Christ was a growing opinion." Their opinions were, also, more publicly advanced from the press; particularly, under the recommendation of Mr. John Bachiler, who gave to various publications, in support of antitrinitarianism and other opinions * Dr. Grey's Examination of Mr. Neal, vol. ii. App. p. 133, 134. + Edwards's Grangræna, vol. i. part i. p. 26.